[eli]

Because a discussion forum is not the same as a phone network. It just isn’t. Why would the rules that govern the phone network make sense to apply to Wikipedia?

It’s weird to be having this argument on one of the very forums that benefits from 230. Do you think HN would be a better place if it were forbidden from moderating content? Were you here before dang came along? Can you imagine how much spam gets deleted before we see it and how unusable it would be if it didn’t?

And not for nothing but I wish my phone company would do an better job of moderating the junk calls and spam texts I get.

But set the phone company metaphor aside: I still don’t understand what outcome you want for social media. How do you imagine it will look? Or is this actually intended to put them all out of business? If so, taking down every comment section and discussion board seems like a lot of collateral damage.

[jimmygrapes]

I wonder whether it would suffice to just have a link to the NSFW/L "Unmoderated" version and remove only that which has valid legal complaints (e.g. DMCA) or illegal content (which should also be made very clear by the lawmakers, in an easy and feasible way to implement, but that's a tangent).

[guscost]

Since the alternative is leading us toward actual violent war, I say “make HN choose between moderation and immunity too, if we must” without hesitation.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” - Sam Adams

[joshuamorton]

> Since the alternative is leading us toward actual violent war, I say “make HN choose between moderation and immunity too, if we must” without hesitation.

Just the opposite. Companies unwillingness to intervene did so. Your opinion may be different, but it's nothing more, and suggesting we deny people their civil liberties based on your hunch is a dangerous line of thinking.

[guscost]

> deny people their civil liberties

Are you saying that a special immunity from prosecution, granted to particular businesses, is a civil liberty?

Or is this some kind of “freedom from being offended/misinformed” newspeak?

I can’t think of another interpretation where what I am proposing does anything but preserve civil liberties.

[joshuamorton]

> Are you saying that a special immunity from prosecution, granted to particular businesses, is a civil liberty?

I think that moderation is a consequence of the rights to speech and association. The ability to choose what content you host, and whose content you host, is a consequence of those rights.

Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, whomever, cannot violate your civil liberties. Only the government can do that. And when they pass laws that, de facto, restrict the ability of companies to associate and speak freely, they restrict those essential liberties.

Section 230 ensured civil liberties, both Facebook's, and yours, and mine. It means that anyone who wants to can create a website for broadcasting and discussion q-anon conspiracies theories, and they can ban anyone who chooses to disagree. But just the same, I can prevent those people from posting things on my website.

[guscost]

> I think that moderation is a consequence of the rights to speech and association. The ability to choose what content you host, and whose content you host, is a consequence of those rights.

The right to speech does not mean that you are also immune from libel laws. That’s the controversial part, Facebook enjoys both the rights (plus consequences), and a special immunity under Section 230 that does not apply to any other kind of speech.

> And when they pass laws that, de facto, restrict the ability of companies to associate and speak freely, they restrict those essential liberties.

Do you think that being banned from Facebook does not also restrict an individual’s ability to associate and speak freely, in 2020?

> Section 230 ensured civil liberties, both Facebook's, and yours, and mine.

I’m sure lawmakers are hearing this exact line from lobbyists, but it rings hollow. One of those is clearly not like the others, and perhaps the law should favor “yours and mine”.

[joshuamorton]

> Do you think that being banned from Facebook does not also restrict an individual’s ability to associate and speak freely, in 2020?

It does not affect their civil liberties, no.

> One of those is clearly not like the others, and perhaps the law should favor “yours and mine”.

Section 230 does. And repealing it would harm them.

> The right to speech does not mean that you are also immune from libel laws.

Correct. And if we were discussing writing section 230, that would be valid. But we aren't. We're discussing changing established law. And if the reason to change the law is to restrict civil liberties that at protected by the first amendment, you encounter a constitutional problem.

Much as some laws are unconstitutional to enforce, I simply argue that some are unconstitutional to ignore.

If you want to imagine the negative impacts of such a change, a forum on baking could no longer remove content that was not related to baking without being liable for content posted by users.

As far as I know, the owner of a physical bulletin board isn't responsible if I post a libelous poster on it. Why should a virtual bulletin board be any different?

[eli]

There are infinitely more alternatives that aren’t “gut 230” or “do nothing.” Why is this the starting point when it will affect so many sites that we all agree aren’t doing anything wrong.

You want to propose a law that regulates Facebook let’s talk about that directly.

[guscost]

Agreed. But if the alternatives (maybe a size/reach threshold above which the laws change?) were to fail, I would rather see every online community become 4chan, than actual violent war. Hopefully things turn out better than either extreme case.

[75dvtwin]

Well, I propose that FB and HN either apply ToS rules uniformly, or stop claiming a 'neutral platform' status.

Another analogy: if you are a for-profit business, do not claim Charity status. It is criminal if you do.

[75dvtwin]

If HN, or Twitter or FB, selectively apply their 'Terms of Service' in a way that reduces access to pro-conservative positions -- then they are not a neutral platform.

If they are not a neutral platform, they cannot claim shields of section 230.

It is like for a business that hides money in a Organization with a Charity status. We would have that business facing criminal charges in no time.

Why the execs of these platforms demand something different ?

[jakelazaroff]

That is not how Section 230 works. It has nothing to do with “neutrality” — it simply shields platforms from liability for legal content created by third parties.

[75dvtwin]

a platform, assumes 'neutrality'. If it is not neutral, it is not a platform.

[jakelazaroff]

That is neither the letter nor the spirit of the law. Section 230 shields “website operators” (since “platform” seems to be a loaded word) from liability for third-party content, even if they use discretion in moderating that content. There is no requirement of “neutrality”.

[root_axis]

Explicit partisan bias is legally protected speech. The conservatives you refer to have no problem with bias when it comes to the mediums they dominate (cable news, talk radio), but when it comes to the wide open internet they now want to bring back the fairness doctrine, as if it's even possible to establish consistent standards for the political composition of a given post on the internet.

[75dvtwin]

Of course it is.

So is a 'for-profit business' is a perfectly fine thing. But having a for-profit business using tax code for a non-profit charity -- would be criminal.

So why does 230 or other shields apply to Twitter or HN or FB?

My point I think more that a social networking company can apply crowdsourced or individual editorialization to political speech. And that application can also be biased, selective and therefore unfair.

It is ok that these companies might do that, but not OK to hide under shields meant for the companies that do not do that (like ISPs)

[root_axis]

> It is ok that these companies might do that, but not OK to hide under shields meant for the companies that do not do that (like ISPs)

What shields? What kind of consequences do you imagine these sites should face for biased content moderation?

[stale2002]

> Why would the rules that govern the phone network make sense to apply to Wikipedia?

Because it is a platform? I don't see a problem with enforcing neutrality on platforms, in the same way that I don't see a problem with enforcing it on my phone company, or my ISP.

> Do you think HN would be a better place

I think the old school reddit model is a reasonable goal to aim for for these types of platforms.

(yes reddit has taken down some communities as of late, but lets assume that this didn't happen, to clarify the example)

IE, delegating moderation to users, but allowing communities in general to be created, with their own sets of rules, feels pretty fair and neutral.

> I still don’t understand what outcome you want for social media. How do you imagine it will look?

The model would be that any form of "moderation" on non-illegal content would be driven entirely by users, or communities of users.

IE, we can still allow people to do things like have shared block lists, or even curated communities within that platform, as long as other users are also able to create their own communities on that platform, that ignore those sets of rules.

Users could still make the choice to have certain rules, or moderation, if that is what they want.

Or, in other words, the reddit model, but without reddit removing non-illegal communities (which, to be fair, doesn't happen that often on reddit anyway. Reddit still mostly tries to be neutral, and they do an ok job with it)

EX: if a user doesn't want to see NSFW stuff, or trolling, or "misinformation", or any other offensive content, then there could be general categories, that describe those things, and the user can have that as a setting to not see that stuff.

[NovemberWhiskey]

>EX: if a user doesn't want to see NSFW stuff, or trolling, or "misinformation", or any other offensive content, then there could be general categories, that describe those things, and the user can have that as a setting to not see that stuff.

Let me go out on a limb here and say that no-one is going onto Facebook looking to find misinformation. They may be looking for stories that appeal to their prejudices and be willing to suspend disbelief for those stories.

But no-one is going to tick the box saying "please show me stuff that is actually definitively false, and potentially dangerous to my person".

So the problem will simply move along to how the "misinformation" tag is being applied and the biases at play there.

[stale2002]

> But no-one is going to tick the box

Completely disagree. I would absolutely tick that box, as would many other people, specifically because we don't necessarily automatically trust whatever authority is "deciding" what is misinformation or not.

Instead, I would prefer to research an issue, by looking at multiple sides, and make a judgement, as opposed to having some minister of truth controlling what I am or am not allowed to read.

> is being applied and the biases at play there.

But the point is, that if you don't trust a certain group or source's opinion on what "misinformation" is, then you could choose a different authority on that.

IE, the tags for what is or is not "misinformation", would be community controlled, and you could pick which community or group to use as the "source" for this tag.